Player Skill - what is it?

[Fallen Seraph]

This isn't a bad definition IMO. It pretty much incorporates the idea of metagaming without calling it such. After all, if you are group story-telling, you have to metagame to some extent. Like I said before, my problem comes in when the game pretty much ignores what's on your character sheet in favor of a "good story".

I dunno if I would say our group is metagaming. Since metagaming suggests using some outside source of information in the game to affect it. When we play, since were engrossed in telling the story and going through it with the PCs, we don't really bring in any outside information.

We know there is a story to be told, and we simply let the players storytell and play through the story and see how it unfolds (thus why I never have a concrete ending, just lots of loose ones ).

Basically they control the immediate narrative of the gameplay while I then adjust the longer-term narrative of the campaign (while filling in the background narrative of course).

 

[Aus_Snow]

So, explain to me, what is player skill? How does it relate to role-playing games (or playing a role)?

It's a bunch of tricks that you learn over time. That period of time is one of trial and error, to a large extent, during which you will without doubt lose many treasured characters, and so learn another trick too: detachment.

Those who are in the know about these tricks (some of which are tricks of perspective, not of rote) have become more skilled at protecting their avatars from annoyingly time-consuming - or power-depleting - death. This is the grail.

I favour systems (and gamers) that do not, in effect, demand the possession of said grail.

So uh, yeah, ths might be the point where old-skoolers and I part ways. . . hm. . .

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not a big fan of puzzles, exactly because they take me out of character. It is me and only me that is thinking about the puzzle. My character does not enter into it, and I have switched from playing an RPG to "playing" a cross-word-puzzle, so to speak.

But I like the "compromise" ideas. Because it is not like I just want to roll the dice to see if I get anything done. That might be because I like tactical combat - I still have to figure out the battle plan, but I use my characters abilities (and the battle plan is me figuring out when or how to apply them).

This principle can be applied to other scenarios, but it sometimes seems more difficult to get it right. For example, how do you combine both effectively in a social skill challenge? My idea goes along the lines: The players still have to come up with the "battle plan" - what do they want to say or do, to what effect. What arguments do they use? What demands/desires do they have? What do they offer the NPCs? What "tactic" do they use - do they lie, intimidate or just befriend? If the challenge succeeds, they get their demands, but are also taken up on their offers, and are perceived by what their tactics and what they said. (Did the Rogue pretend to be an envoy from a nearby city? Did the Fighter intimidate the elder councilman? Did the Wizard tell them about the artifact they found?)


Maybe there is time for some "refinement" on skill challenges of the non-mathematical nature?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's a bunch of tricks that you learn over time. That period of time is one of trial and error, to a large extent, during which you will without doubt lose many treasured characters, and so learn another trick too: detachment.

Detachment... That seems to be the problem my group reported about their Call of Cthulhu experiences (they played it before my time). Detachment and getting the biggest guns there was...

 

[IceFractal]

The most extreme version of this is what I "challenge by proxy" in which the PCs are not challenged per se, but are stand ins for the players and what attributes the character may have has no influence on the tasks at hand (see Horrors, Tomb of).

Is that really a problem though? The PC is words and numbers on a sheet. It doesn't have feelings, and it won't care if it gets challenged or not. The players are infinitely more important than their character sheets - challenging and entertaining them is what matters.

Now I do understand the "why should I have to be a genius to play a genius character?" point. However, if you try to run things purely off the characters' abilities, you would remove the players from the game entirely:
DM: You see the dragon, rising over the crest of the hill.
Fighter Player: I move the best tactical position - my character would know where that is.
Wizard Player: I cast the most useful spell for the situation.
DM: *much rolling* Your characters have defeated the dragon, at the cost of three potions and 85% of your spells.
Wizard Player: I use the dragon's hoard to make whatever items are the most suited for us, and research whatever spells will be important in future.
Fighter Player: I'm going to use this victory to try and get some followers and a keep - maybe become a baron or something. Roll to see how long that takes.
DM: Ok, I'm going to run the numbers - I'll email you the results of whatever happens in the next three levels.

 

[pemerton]

Here is my take on player skill vs. PC skill.

Interesting and well-thought out musing, as always!

 

[BeauNiddle]

Is that really a problem though? The PC is words and numbers on a sheet. It doesn't have feelings, and it won't care if it gets challenged or not. The players are infinitely more important than their character sheets - challenging and entertaining them is what matters.

The problem I find is that after a while Ted plays Ted, Dave plays Dave and Andy plays Andy.

If the character has the same social abilities, tactical abilities, reasoning abilities and world knowledge as the last character then can they truely be playing a new character?

By ruling that the character must be played the way the numbers on the sheet say then you open up the option of all players being able to play all characters.


[Yes I know it's an exaggeration but so was IceFractal's ]


Every group has to decide which compromise between the two extremes they're going to use.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Is that really a problem though? The PC is words and numbers on a sheet. It doesn't have feelings, and it won't care if it gets challenged or not. The players are infinitely more important than their character sheets - challenging and entertaining them is what matters.

Now I do understand the "why should I have to be a genius to play a genius character?" point. However, if you try to run things purely off the characters' abilities, you would remove the players from the game entirely:
DM: You see the dragon, rising over the crest of the hill.
Fighter Player: I move the best tactical position - my character would know where that is.
Wizard Player: I cast the most useful spell for the situation.
DM: *much rolling* Your characters have defeated the dragon, at the cost of three potions and 85% of your spells.
Wizard Player: I use the dragon's hoard to make whatever items are the most suited for us, and research whatever spells will be important in future.
Fighter Player: I'm going to use this victory to try and get some followers and a keep - maybe become a baron or something. Roll to see how long that takes.
DM: Ok, I'm going to run the numbers - I'll email you the results of whatever happens in the next three levels.

Yes, I think that is exactly the other extreme.

I think there is a middle ground between "all player skill" and "all character skill" where you will want most games to be in.

The wizard in the example might use his skills to determine that the dragon has a vulnerability to cold, has powerful claws and breathes fire in a blast. Now the player has to figure out which of his spells will he use - should he cast a resist fire spell - and on which party member? Should he hamper the dragons movement? Should he open up with a ice spell?
Going so far and have the character also use the "Tactics" skill to find the answer for this would probably go too far.

Of course, you might still want a "Tactics" skill in the game (d20 Modern and Shadowrun did have them, and the entire flavor text of the Warlord implies it) - how do you handle that? In my view, the best thing would be an abstraction - like rolling your tactic skill to get a defensive or offensive bonus.
The 4E Warlord hands out bonuses and extra moves - they (can) represent his tactical acumen, giving the PCs a tactical advantage because they have more options - but the players still have to figure out how to use these options effectively.

Of course, for some people, this might be sometimes to obvious - "okay, this power from the Warlord gave me a +4 to attack and damage -
"Geez, should I use my basic attack or should I use my "Hit him where it hurts" daily attack power, oh the agony and thrill of decision making..."), but I think you'll get the idea anyway.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's a bunch of tricks that you learn over time. That period of time is one of trial and error, to a large extent, during which you will without doubt lose many treasured characters, and so learn another trick too: detachment.

Those who are in the know about these tricks (some of which are tricks of perspective, not of rote) have become more skilled at protecting their avatars from annoyingly time-consuming - or power-depleting - death. This is the grail.

I favour systems (and gamers) that do not, in effect, demand the possession of said grail.

So uh, yeah, ths might be the point where old-skoolers and I part ways. . . hm. . .

I am just reminded of something else - Standard Operation Procedures (SOP)s.

Stuff that a party just learns to do after some time.
For example "Drücken/Pressen/Saugen/Blasen/Schieben/Ziehen" ("push/press/suck/blow/push/pull) is a term used in my group for dealing with doors, obstacles and other objects-of-interest we don't know to handle otherwise.

But there are "higher concepts" of this two - like the standard practice of getting Cure Light Wound Wands or casting the "standard buffs". "Spellcaster or spellcasting monster? My Cleric/Paladin/Fighter/Hospitaler casts Antimagic Circle while the rest of the party hammers him with Admantite weapons" (3E tactic, where Admantite provided a "natural enhancement bonus").
Or "It's not a Shadowrun if Johnson doesn't frack you twice" - expecting the Johnson to screw you over eventually, typically after the second run you're doing for him...

That's an extreme of player skill that I found to become a little boring (and sometimes breaking suspension of disbelief, since every 1st level party tried to use similar tactics), and ultimiately no longer contributing to the game experience.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Player skill means not having to reach for a die whenever a problem presents itself. If the first thing out out of a player's mouth when presented with an obstacle is: " I got a (insert number),(insert skill name), check" then its a sign that player skill is either absent or on vacation.

I prefer a nice mix of character skill and player skill, both when running and playing. There are those times when having a dimwitted character have a moment of brilliance or the opposite, create truly memorable moments. Even fantasy fiction provides examples of this. The Lord of the Rings scene featuring Gandalf (a bright guy not to mention a demigod) stumped by a riddle that Frodo ( not a dummy at all but not in Ganadalf's league of Int) solves rather easily. In a old 1E campaign from 20 years ago, I remember a minotaur fighter that charged full speed towards a door and failed ( he struck the door, rolled poorly and fell down). The human druid then stepped up, rolled a 1 and pushed the door open. It was very funny, based completely on traits from the characters, yet completely opposite to the results one would expect from these characters, looking over the raw numbers.

When it comes to puzzles, I really do enjoy them. The trick to good puzzles is to make solving them relative to what the characters know and not some strange puzzle that has no meaning in the campaign. Having to have memorized the lyrics to every song on a particular album to solve a riddle can take you right out of the game and bring it to a crashing halt.
On the other hand, providing clues in the game that enable the PC's to solve a puzzle with just that information can be really fun.

What I don't like about systems that reduce everything to a die roll is that this type of play does nothing to reward players who actually think, and pay attention to the events in the campaign. If a player just wants to space out and roll the dice in combat, thats ok but when it comes time to solve a problem using information that every player has but this player chose not to care about then a die roll just won't cut it.

What it all boils down to is what type of game is the group there to play? For me, D&D has been a game that provides opportunities to think quickly, roleplay, problem solve, and improvise. If I just want to move a game piece around and roll dice I can play a board or war game.